Again, Chris, this is not a full response, but I noted the following
comments in the Wikipedia entry on Deleuze:
"In *Organs without Bodies* (2003), Slavoj
Žižek<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek>claims that
Deleuze's ontology oscillates between materialism and idealism,
[46] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze#cite_note-45> and that
the Deleuze of *Anti-Oedipus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus>*("arguably Deleuze's worst
book"),
[47] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze#cite_note-46> the
"political" Deleuze under the "'bad' influence" of Guattari, ends up,
despite protestations to the contrary, as "the ideologist of late
capitalism".[48]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze#cite_note-47>Žižek also
calls Deleuze to task for allegedly reducing the subject to
"just another" substance and thereby failing to grasp the nothingness that,
according to Lacan and Žižek, defines
subjectivity.[49]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze#cite_note-48>What
remains worthwhile in Deleuze's oeuvre, Žižek finds, are precisely
those concepts closest to Žižek's own ideas.
In *Out of this World: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation* (2006), Peter
Hallward <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hallward> argues that
Deleuze's insistence that being is necessarily creative and
always-differentiating entails that his philosophy can offer no insight
into, and is supremely indifferent to, the material, actual conditions of
existence. Thus Hallward claims that Deleuze's thought is literally
other-worldly, aiming only at a passive contemplation of the dissolution of
all identity into the theophanic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany>self-creation of nature."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze
On 11 August 2012 07:40, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Our posts just crossed, Chris, but, as I wrote, I've only skimmed the
> article quickly, I won't have time to read it with care for probably a week
> or so, so I may be doing it an injustice. More anon.
>
>
> On 11 August 2012 07:26, chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/12 19:50, David Bircumshaw wrote:
>>
>>> 'an inexhaustible novelty-producing process'?
>>>
>>
>> The problem I have here, is it becomes an end of the novel, end of art
>> idea. So it becomes another version of PostModernism, to which I wouldn't
>> agree. I tend more so to side with Marx, here, on the question that novelty
>> is always possible... but there are other concerns, of course.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Joseph Bircumshaw
> **
> Website and A Chide's Alphabet
> http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
> twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
> blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
> Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.com
>
>
--
David Joseph Bircumshaw
**
Website and A Chide's Alphabet
http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.com
|